DUSTIN HOFFMAN's grandson AUGUSTUS is at the centre of a ratings debate - the newborn's parents are at odds over whether or not they should circumcise him.

Hoffman's daughter JENNA and her husband SEAMUS welcomed their son into the world just three weeks ago, and he's already the subject of an ongoing debate which is even starting to involve other actors.

The screen star says, "I don't wanna invade the privacy of my half-Jewish daughter and her Irish husband, but there is a controversy between them in terms of circumcision.

"Sometimes they say someone shouldn't be circumcised because it's more natural and they should be circumcised because of hygiene. But the argument against that is if you wanna clean under your nails you don't cut your nails off!

"I was talking to [former Seinfeld co-author] LARRY DAVID about this, because one of the things in favour of not circumcising is that the foreskin covers the sensitivity of the nerve endings... I said it might make it less sensitive. Larry David, who is circumcised, says,
'Less sensitive? If it was any more sensitive I'd have a heart attack!'"

This claim is often made. Unsurprisingly, intact men do not have heart attacks every time they have sex.

Unkind cut: Dutch medicare halts coverage for male circumcision[The "unkind cut" is the circumcisions, not the cut to payments.]

Canadian Press

Friday, December 17, 2004

ADVERTISEMENT

AMSTERDAM, Netherlands (AP) - The Dutch national health insurance will no longer pay for male circumcision, the Heath Ministry said Friday.

The ministry decided to halt compensation following reports that up to 90 per cent of circumcisions are carried out for religious, rather than health reasons, as specified in Dutch law, ministry spokesman Bas Kuik said.

Muslims and Jews routinely circumcise boys at birth. Around 8.5 per cent of children born in the Netherlands are circumcised, or about 17,000 a year. The average cost at birth, when there are no complications, is around $650 Cdn.

Female circumcision - sometimes called genital mutilation - is outlawed in the Netherlands, and the government plans a law making it possible to prosecute parents who travel to foreign countries to have their daughters circumcised.

Justice Minister Piet Hein Donner said in October the government has no plans to outlaw male circumcision, which is classified as a cosmetic surgery if not medically necessary.
[What other "cosmetic surgery" is done to healthy normal newborns regardless of their possible future wishes?]

Rabbi ordered to pay NIS 1.18 million for botched
circumcision

By Yuval Azoulay, Haaretz Correspondent

The Rishon Letzion Magistrate's Court on Tuesday
ordered the former rabbi of the Gan Yavneh local
council to pay a child and his parents NIS 1.18 million [US$272,000, €205,570]
in damages after the child was left severely disfigured
when he was circumcised by the rabbi.

The rabbi, Mehumar Tzubari, performed the religious
ceremony on the child in April 1995. A few hours after
the ceremony, the mother realized that the tip of the
child's penis was blacked and called the rabbi. He
checked the area, applied iodine ointment and told the
mother not to worry and that "everything will be
fine."

After several days in the hospital, doctors
diagnosed gangrene in the penis tip. The penis tip was
lost, the penis became trapped within the skin
enveloping it. Two years later, the infant underwent
surgery at Schneider Children's Hospital to release the
penis, replace the missing skin and give the penis a
healthier appearance. The operation failed.

In August 2000, the infant was operated on in the
United States by Dr. Gerald Jordan, a world renowned
expert on reconstructive surgery. According to the
child's parents, the operation failed to restore the
penis to normal since the reconstructed tip does not
enable an erection to be maintained during
intercourse.

The parents filed suit against the rabbi, the Gan
Yavneh religious council, the Gan Yavneh local council
and the Religious Affairs Ministry. The deputy
president of the Rishon Letzion Magistrate's Court,
Judge Dalia Gannot, rejected the suits against the
public bodies, but found in favor of the suit against
the rabbi.

During the trial, it emerged that Tzubari was not
qualified to work as a mohel (the religious official
who carries out a circumcision).

The judge ordered Tzubari to pay NIS 850,000 of the
NIS 1.18 million in damages for the family's past and
future suffering, and to compensate the parents for the
cost of psychiatric treatment for their son.

JTA ("Global News Service of the Jewish People")Tuesday, December 14, 2004

Mutilating mohel sued

An Israeli boy who suffered a botched circumcision was awarded $400,000.
Rishon Lezion Magistrate's Court found Tuesday that the mohel who
operated on the boy, now nine years old and undergoing remedial surgery,
was liable for damages caused to the boy's penis. The court rejected a
request by the mohel for his employer, Gan Yavne Religious Council, to be
equally liable in the lawsuit.

Father gets three years for more amateur circumcision than usual

Wednesday December 15, 2004

He got 36 months, not quite the maximum I believe.
The case name is State v. Edwin Bruce Baxter, case # 04-1-01764-5.
(Personal communication)

A jury deliberated 40 minutes Tuesday before convicting a Ridgefield man
of assault for attempting to circumcise his 8-year-old.

Edwin B. Baxter, 33, was polite after the verdict as he was handcuffed
to be taken back to the Clark County Jail. He thanked his attorney and the
prosecutor, who last week offered Baxter a plea deal that would've given
the father of nine credit for the three months spent in custody and
released him from jail. He declined.

Now, Baxter faces up to three years and five months in prison.

A truck driver and fundamentalist Christian who wears a long beard,
Baxter dressed in flannel shirts and work boots during his two-day trial
and had a Bible with him in court. He did not testify before the jury of
seven men and five women.

He did, however, make a statement to Judge James Rulli for the purpose
of preserving his right to appeal on the grounds Rulli did not allow him
to use his faith as a defense.

Baxter said he decided to circumcise his 8-year-old, the eldest of his
four boys, on Sept. 3 after he read in the Old Testament that males should
undergo the procedure.

"I had no reason to think I would be in violation of any of God's
laws,"
Baxter said.

"I felt it was an act of obedience."

He said he was only following in the footsteps of Abraham, Isaac and
"every other godly man."

He had his son lay on towels in what was described by witnesses as a
dirty bathtub. He used a hunting knife to attempt the procedure, but
called 911 when his son began bleeding profusely.

"It breaks my heart to think that this state would think of me as a
child abuser," Baxter said.

Senior Deputy Prosecutor Kim Farr asked whether the circumcision would
have been equally symbolic if it had been performed by a doctor in a
sterile environment.

"I have no reason to think otherwise," Baxter said.

Farr said after the trial that Baxter's son was not circumcised at
birth
because none of the Baxter children have been born in hospitals. He said
the family used a van outside their Ridgefield home as a birthing place.

Baxter's 30-year-old wife, Tammy, is said to be pregnant with her 10th
child.

She and the children have not been found by law enforcement or
investigators from the state Department of Children and Family Services,
who had been seeking them in connection with the trial.

After the verdict, Judge Rulli dismissed arrest warrants for Tammy
Baxter and the victim.

A urologist who treated the victim said he has not seen the boy to
know
if his wound has healed.

Dr. Douglas Masson said he closed the boy's wound, rather than
complete
the circumcision, to let it heal and to minimize the chance of infection.

However, scar tissue could require that the boy be circumcised in the
future, he said.

--- Stephanie Rice covers the courts. She can be reached at 360-759-8004
or
stephanie.rice@columbian.com.

Law to ban dog-tail docking passes first hurdle, dockers explicitly compare it to circumcision

If along with a Bill seeking to ban docking of dogs' tails, there
were also a Bill seeking to ban all circumcision of male babies, the
Jewish community would be up in arms at the prospect of a grievous
infringement of their rights.

Well the New Zealand Council of Docked Breeds represents thousands of
responsible dog-breeders in this country and we are outraged at the
prospect of having our rights trampled upon by this legislation.

Our members are caring owners who love their dogs as children are
loved and we know that if the correct procedures are followed, tail-
docking is not cruel. That is why we support a freedom of choice
position for dog-breeders on the issue of tail docking.

Blatant hypocrisy

The hypocrisy of a lobby that attempts to ban dog tail-docking while
leaving lambs and baby boys all over the country at the mercy of farmers
and doctors (respectively) is breathtaking. Clearly the belief exists that
lamb docking and male circumcision is not cruel and does not warrant
legislation to ban it; so why dogs?

Why is lamb docking not cruel? Why shouldn't we ban all circumcision
except that carried out for medical reasons? [Hear! Hear!]

The fact is that arguments in support of docking lambs, circumcising
Jewish baby boys and docking dogs' tails have much in common. The
arguments include: hygiene and safety (for lambs who grow into sheep
vulnerable to fly-strike and barbed wire-related tail injuries) and;
decades and centuries of tradition and culture.

Cruelty is not a serious issue in any of these instances. And on dog
tail-docking, the Council for Docked Breeds has expert veterinary opinion
to support our position.

Of course dog-breeders embrace tradition; just as they embrace
passionate care for the dogs they breed, raise and show. A tradition of
breeds displaying certain characteristics is valid in this society. And
that tradition is highly valued by a breeding community steeped in the
culture and tradition of dog breeding and showing.

Dogs, like sheep, can be vulnerable to hygiene issues around their
tails; long-haired breeds in particular. And dogs frequently suffer
from tail injuries. We do not seek to force all breeders to dock
tails, we simply believe it is the right of responsible breeders to
choose.

Purpose: The aim of this study was to determine factors effecting [sic] the decision process of the parents of newborn boys regarding circumcision.

Methods: Parents were approached in the inpatient units of a maternity hospital to complete a survey of demographic information, decision on circumcision, education, and contributing factors. Parents were excluded only if they had not decided at survey time whether or not their newborn would be circumcised.

Results: 364 surveys were conducted. Eighty-six percent (314) of parents elected circumcision. In order of importance, these factors were influential in their decision: 1. avoid cleaning and maintenance, 2. prevent UTIs, 3. father is circumcised, 4. circumcision will not physically harm the child, and 5. prevent STDs. Approximately 48% of parents surveyed had discussed circumcision in some detail with an obstetrician, while 32% reported doing so with a pediatrician. Eighty-four percent of parents received some education about circumcision, from either an OB/Pediatrician or another source. In order of importance, the sources were: 1. family, 2. Ob/Gyn, 3. pediatrician, 4. other. When asked if their doctors opinion about circumcision influenced their decision, 90% answered no. Using t-tests and chi-square analysis, a significant correlation was found between Christian mothers and fathers and the likelihood of influence by a doctors opinion. Neither religion, ethnicity, source of information, nor discussion with a specific practitioner yielded significant correlation with which factors were most important to parents decision.

Conclusion: The most important factors influencing the choice appear to stem from parents perception that increased effort is necessary to care for an uncircumcised penis, concern about UTI, and the fathers circumcision status. For those who decided against circumcision, cultural and traditional factors had sporadic roles, but the majority felt that it was an unnecessary procedure. While most parents view doctors as sources of information, their primary resource appears to be family. For those whose decision was influenced by a physician, obstetricians may carry more weight.